this Providence We acknowledge that the Authority of Government is derived only from God and from him no otherwise but by a Providential Conveyance of his Authority upon particular Persons and thus far we are agreed But then the Question is Whether God's Providence does invest a Prince with his Authority by the conveyance of Right or by the conveyance of Possession without it In short whether every Prince in Possession is invested with God's Authority We affirm that Government is founded in God's Authority but we deny that God conveys it upon every Prince in Possession 3. When we say God's Authority is annexed to Right we do not confine this to a Right by political Laws of particular Governments the adaequate Rule of Right is Law and whatsoever is Law may create a Right and consequently Right may result not only from political Laws of this or that Government but also from the Laws of God of Nature and Nations the Will of God revealed is a Law to us and therefore when God nominates a King by express Revelation he has a Right to the Possession of Sovereignty and the Obedience of Subjects In a state â—f Nature as they call it wherein Men are under no Government nor Obligation of Subjection they may choose a Sovereign and when they have chosen him he has a Right to Sovereignty by the Law of Nature By the Law of Nations it is generally said how truly I dispute not that Conquest in a just War does create a lawful Right And lastly when political Societies are Constituted and a Rule of Succession Established either at the first by an Original Agreement or afterwards by Prescription or positive Laws that Law of Succession does create a Right to the Sovereignty which is confirmed by the Laws of God and Nature and Nations but if this Law be violated and an Usurpation is made against it the Usurpers may acquire a Right by Prescription which implies an undisturbed Possession and a Dereliction of the former Right and this new Right which commences from the extinction of the former is such by the Law of Nature which is Equity and of Nations which is the Consent of civilized Societies Lastly Where there is no Rule of Succession or no Right in any Person to the Sovereignty as when a Royal Family is extinguished in such Cases The Possession of Sovereign Power is Title enough when there is no better Title to oppose it for then we may presume that God gives him the irresistible Authority of a King to whom he gives an irresistible Power When there is no other Right Possession is a Right by the Law of Nature and Nations but Possession of another's Right has been always pronounced invalid by the voice of Equity and the suffrage of all Nations These Two last Rights may perhaps be reduced to the Second the Consent of a free People for they suppose them to be discharged from all former Obligations and Possession of Sovereignty supposes Submission of the People and that is nothing else but a Consent to be governed which in a free People I have observed does create a Right to Sovereignty by the Law of Nature And now let us consider what the Doctor does object against these Titles to Sovereignty Against the Choice and Consent of the People he objects That then no Man is a Subject but he who Consents to be so for the major Vote says he cannot include my Consent unless I please that is the effect of Law and Compact or Force not of Nature I answer when a free People choose a Sovereign if they consent to choose it is presum'd unless it be otherwise provided that they consent the major Vote shall determine the Choice this presumption is grounded upon manifest Equity But if any one refuses to be determin'd by a Majority he refuses to enter into the Society and may remove out of it but if he will live within the Government of the new Sovereign he accepts him for his Sovereign and is bound to Obedience He urges farther That if Subjects give their Prince Authority they may take it away again if they please Bp. Sanderson propounds this very Inference and his Answer is this Contra stat ratio omnia jura omnia for a reclamant scilicet legitima pacta non esse rescindenda It is the Voice of Reason and of all Laws and of all places of Commerce that lawful Compacts are not to be resâ—inded at pleasure But another Answer is also given The Subjects are only instrumental Agents God is the principal Agent in the making of a King the People design the Person and God conveys the Authority It is God that makes Kings the People are his Instruments but he has given them no Power to depose them The Doctor himself affirms That the Consent of the People are the means by which Princes gain a Right to their Thrones and I affirm no more the People may be a means of conveying Right though it be God alone that confers the Authority and if God alone does make Kings he alone can depose them But farther Vpon this Principle there can be no Hereditary Monarchy one Generation can choose only for themselves their Posterity having as much Right to choose as they had True if there could be no Right to Sovereignty without the constant Election of the Subjects but that is no Principle of mine and I am not bound to answer for it but this I will answer for that a Law made a Thousand Years ago may be Obligatory now and that it may create a Right to a Person now living and that it may be a Sin to deprive him of it tho' it be done by the help of Providence His Objection against the Right of Conquest supposes it to be effected by unjust and violent Force and I easily acknowledge that unjust Conquest gives no Right Submission he says is only a forced and after Consent not to make a King but to own him who has made himself King and what Right can that give more than Force He shall Answer this himself The Consent and Submission of the People turn that which was Originally no more but Force into a civil and legal Authority by giving themselves up to the Government of the Prince by this means Princes gain a Right to those Thrones to which they had no antecedont Right this is certainly true where the People are under no antecedent Obligation The continuance of an Vsurpation can never give a Right unless that which is Wrong grow Right by Continuance That Maxim of the Law to which he refers has this Exception Vnless a new Cause intervene which of it self can create a Right Now that which makes way for a new Right is the Extinction of the former Right The continuance of an Usurpation of it self may never give a Right but if the Usurpers enjoy quiet Possession of a 100 Years together it is a presumption in Law and Equity
and therefore if the Possession of a Power which is the Right of another be Wickedness we are sure that God's Decree and Providence about it are merely permissive and are consequently far from being Arguments of Divine Authority But to return to the Doctor He endeavours to support his Argument by Providence by remembring That Kings are God's Ministers and Lieutenants and are invested with his Authority now to give Authority to any Person does not signifie to permit him to take it and we cannot but think that God will exercise a particular Providence in appointing his great Ministers Under the word Kings he comprehends Vsurpers and here the Doctor would conjure us into a Circle He undertook to prove that all Usurpers do rule by God's Authority because they are advanced by his Providence and now he remembers that they are invested with his Authority and from thence he argues that they are advanced by his Providence But the Doctor remembers what he has not proved that all Kings comprehending Usurpers are invested with God's Authority This we positively deny as being here precariously asserted and therefore the Assumptions and Inferences that follow ought to pass for nothing But behold his Subtilty No Man can have God's Authority but he to whom it is given and if the advancement to a Throne invests a Prince with God's Authority then God gives him the Throne and does not merely permit him to take it If the Supposition were well proved the Consequence would be never doubted but the Reason on which he grounds it is either not true or not pertinent For no Man can take God's Authority but it must be given by him The gift of God does generally imply a conveyance of Right by divine Donation and in this sense his Assertion is manifestly false for all Authority is God's and whenever Men do assume Power and Authority which they have no Right to exercise as for instance all Usurpers Rebels Pyrates Robbers and Schismatical Preachers it is evident they usurp that Power and Authority which God never gave them But sometimes God is said to give a thing when Providence so orders it that Men have Power to take it Thus â—â—d God give David's Wives to Absalom as the Prophet had denounced but this Permissive gift did by no means authorize and legitimate his Inoest with them and in this sense it is true That no Man can take God's Authority but it must be given that is no Man can usurp it without God's Permission But in this sense his Proposition here is insignificant for a Permissive gift is as good a Charter for Thieves and Cut-throats as it is for Tyrants and Usurpers Nay says the Doctor Since God makes Kings now not by an express Nomination but only by the Events of Providence we must not allow that God at any time permits Men to make themselves Kings whom he does not make Kings for then we can never distinguish between Kings by the Permission and by the Appointment of God between God's Kings and Kings of their own making Then in other words he repeats the same Assertion and concludes That there is no direction how to distinguish them and the Events of Providence in placing them in the Throne are the same in both Here the Doctor will not distinguish against his own Hypothesis but why may not the Permission and Appointment of God be as easily distinguished in the advancement of Kings as in the success of Pyrates and Robbers or in any other Event whatever Since the only way whereby God does now give Riches and Estates is the disposal of Providence can we therefore never distinguish between the Possessing them by the Permission and by the Appointment of God Does the forgeâ— of a Will hold his Estate by divine Appointment or the Thief the purchase of Robbery If we cannot distinguish in such Cases between God's Permission and Appointment Justice must leave the Earth again and a divine Right may be pleaded for all the Injustice in the World But if that distinction be allowed in private Property why should it not be admitted in the right of Sovereignty also the Reason is the same in both for God can never be the Author of any Wickedness and as long as the Possession of any thing is unjust or wicked we may be sure that Providence only permits it But saith the Doctor There is no direction how to distinguish between Kings by Permission and by divine Appointment and the Events of Providence are the same in both If he means direction in Scripture he knows we are directed there to render every Man his due and not only Scripture but the Laws of Nature and Nations do direct it also But though Scripture is no Code of Political Laws and Rights yet we want not sufficient direction to determine us in paying every one his due Political Laws and Constitutions are the Rule of Civil Rights and they direct us how to distinguish between unjust and just Possessors and the light of Reason and Scripture does assure us That an unjust Possession is only permitted by God and not appointed and authorized by him We have as plain a direction how to distinguish about the Possession of Sovereignty as of private Property or as we have to distinguish between the Usurpers of God's vindictive Justice â—nd the lawful Administrators of it Vengeance is God's and his Vicegerents but it is often usurp'd by Murtherers and Rebels they invade it by God's Permission only but the Laws of Nations teach us how to distinguish them from God's Vicegerents and if we have directions to distinguish when one branch of Sovereignty is permitted to be Invaded when the whole is Invaded will not the same directions serve Or is it easie to distinguish in lesser Usurpations impossible in greater But when a legal Prince and an Usurper are advanced to a Throne The Event is the same in both The Events considered as Natural actions may be the same but as Moral they may be as easily distinguish'd as any Moral good and evil Adultery and Conjugal Copulation just and unjust Possessions the executions of Magistrates and Cut-throats the Beheading of Charles the First and the Beheading of Monmouth in all these actions the Event considered Physically is the same but I hope it is easie to distinguish in these Cases between Lawful and Unlawful Permission and Appointment So it is in the advancement to Sovereignty when King Charles and Cromwell were advanced the Event to wit the Possession of the Sovereignty was the same but every Church of England Man in those Days could easily distinguish between God's Sovereign and the Devil 's In short we can never distinguish Permission and Appointment by bare Events but only by the moral Circumstances which denominate them good or evil Consequently since Providence it self must be distinguished by the rules of good and evil it necessarily follows that Providence of it self can never be a rule to us The only rule of our
Emperors who now govern the World are now ordained and appointed by God Now if the Roman Emperors were lawful Powers it is plain the Apostle required Subjection unto lawful Powers and not unto Usurpers and the former general Proposition There is no Power but of God must be restrained by the later The Powers that be are ordained of God The later Proposition shews what Power he speaks of in the former and restrains it to this Sense There is no lawful Power but of God This Interpretation is natural and agreeable to the common Rules of Interpreting and to the common Sense and Reason of Manking if the Apostle had liv'd in the Reign of Charles I. and required the English Christians to be subject to the King then in being as ordained by God Would this have been a good Argument for Subjection to the Rump and Cromwell as the Ordinance of God Could the precept which required Allegiance to a lawful King be of any advantage to an Usurper And would not such an Interpretation have appeared unreasonable and unnatural The Doctor excepts unsettled Powers out of the Rule but he can give no other Reason for it but that the Powers then in being were throughly settled he must allow then that the same Reason will hold good for the exception of Usurpers if the same Powers were lawful He saw himself that this Consequence was unavoidable and therefore to prevent the Force of it he denies the Roman Emperors to have been lawful Powers affirms that for many Ages together the Titles of the Roman Emperors were all of them either stark nought or the very best of them very doubtful and I believe he is the first that ever affirmed it What were their Titles nought and were they all Usurpers for many Ages together What Historian Lawyer or good Author what Demonstration or even probable Argument can be produce for so incredible an Assertion But what have we to do here with the Emperors of many Ages he knows that either Claudius or Nero were the higher Powers to whom Subjection is requir'd by the Apostle and it was plainly his business to speak to their Titles if he intended to speak to the purpose but he declines this for it was impossible to prove them Usurpers he says only in general and without proof he says it that the Emperors Titles were either stark nought or very doubtful And is there no difference between no Title and a doubtful Title the Laws of Nature and Nations and I believe the Municipal Laws of all Societies do allow Possession to be a good and lawful Right where the Title is doubtful and the antecedent Right cannot be sufficiently proved if the Titles therefore of the Emperors were doubtful they were lawful Emperours and if Allegiance be due to such it is no good Consequence that Allegiance is due to Usurpers He should have prov'd that the Emperors were manifest Usurpers of that Sovereignty which was the Right of others and he should have prov'd this particularly of Claudius and Nero But the Title of these Emperors was unquestionable for 1. They had no Competitors who claim'd a Right to the Empire and therefore either there was no better Right or it was extinguish'd by Dereliction 2. Neither the Senate nor the Roman People had a good Right against them for they had not that which they had parted with that Right which they had by their own Acts and Deeds they convey'd upon the Emperors The Lex Regia which is mention'd in Dion Cassius and Justinian's Code and some Remains whereof are publish'd in Gruter's Inscriptions is an authentick evidence of this Translation of their Right It is very probable that this Law was renew'd at the advancement of every Emperor and it appears plainly from the Remains of it that Augustius Tiberius Caius Claudius and Vespasian had the Imperial Power conferred on them by a written Law and therefore they were lawful Emperors It is certain they had all of them the concurrent agreement of the Roman Senate and People Claudius was first set up by the Soldiers but the Senate soon consented to his Advancement and swore Fidelity to him and the Roman People and all the Provinces received him as their Emperour and the same universal concurrence there was to the Advancement of Nero without any Opposition Thus the Senate and People by express Law or by their Submission and Oaths of Fidelity which were as evident Declarations of their Will as any Law could be had transferred their Right upon the Emperors and therefore had not that which they transferred and there is no pretence of Right for any others and then it is evident those Emperors were Rightful Princes because they had a Lawful Right and because no other Right could be made good against them The Doctor insinuates this Prejudice against their Right that the consent of the Senate was extorted by â—ear or Flattery or other Acts. But their Consent however was voluntary and therefore valid against themselves Consent extorted by Fear or Flattery is as obligatory aâ— that which proceeds from Love or â—varice or Ambition or any other violent Passion and if all Contracts in which Fear or other Passions have a share are â—ill there is an end of all Justice and Faith among Manking But the Consent of the Senate and the People of Rome to the advancement of the Emperors may be justified by Reason and Necessity and the publick Good there was no other way to prevent Civil War and the Dissolution of the Empire We find in History that this Reason prevail'd upon the wisest of the Romans and since there are rational Grounds for their Consent why should it be ascrib'd to Fear and Folly rather than to Reason or Wisdom In the consent of a Multitude there may be as many Reasons as Men and therefore we must have regard only to their Act of consenting and not to their Reasons otherwise no consent of a Multitude will be valid for the Reasons of many of them will be always invalid and such as may be resolv'd into some Passion or other The Doctor adds that it is plain the Romans themselves were great Vsurpers and had no other Right to the greatest part of their Empire but Conquest and Vsurpation The Romans always pretended Justice in their Wars and if their pretence was true and the Right of Conquest in a just War be a good one they had a just Right to their Acquisitions they obtain'd a just Right to many of their Provinces by the dedition of the former Sovereigns and by express Compacts with them and by the extinction of all Competitors But in short it may suffice to answer that when St. Paul wrote this Epistle to the Romans they had a Right to their Provinces by Prescription and the Law of Nations declares that to be a good one This is all that the Doctor hath objected to the Title of the Roman Emperors and for any thing he hath objected their Title
was just and lawful He says if we must obey such Powers as the Roman Power was I know very few Powers that we may not obey and he had said it to some purpose if he had prov'd that Power to be Usurpation But I know no Powers that are more lawful and if we are requir'd to obey such Powers only we are under no Obligation to be the Subjects of Usurpers if the Powers intended by the Apostle were lawful then he requir'd Subjection only to lawful Powers and to say that he speaks of such Powers is not gratis dictum for there is evidence of it if I were the Doctor I should say there is little less than Demonstration for it 2. That the Rule of the Apostle must be restrain'd to lawful Powers does seem evident as from the Powers then in being so also from the Nature of the Duty and the Apostle's manner of expressing it Subjection or Non-Resistance is the Duty requir'd but Scripture it self and the Law of Nations do allow Resistance of Usurpers and therefore this Rule of Scripture ought not so to be interpreted as to prohibit that which is allow'd by Scripture and by the Consent of Nations especially when it may be interpreted in a Sense agreeable to them Who can doubt but that the Recuperative Wars of the Israelites against the Nations that usurp'd upon them recorded in the Book of Judges that the Resistance of Absalom by Joab and other Loyal Subjects and the Deposition of Athaliah after a Settlement of six Years Possession are approv'd in Scripture Does Christianity any where forbid such Recuperative Wars Have not all Nations ever allow'd and practis'd them And are not they allow'd by all Divines and Christians excepting Quakers Anabaptists and Socinians But if such Wars for the recovery of usurped Dominion are lawful it evidently follows that Usurpers may be lawfully resisted and therefore they are not such Powers as are declar'd by the Apostle to be God's Ordinance and unresistible Nothing can be objected to this Argument but that a Recuperative War may be lawful to the dispossessed Sovereign and yet unlawful to the Subjects and this indeed is asserted by the Doctor But here it shall suffice to reply in short that if an Usurper be God's Ordinance and Minister he has a Divine Right to the Throne and therefore a Recuperative War against him is a War against God it cannot be lawful to dispossess any one of a Power for which he has God's Authority no Truth and Principle can be more evident than this and so the Result must be either that the Usurper is not God's Ordinance or that a War to dispossess him is absolutely unlawful if the Doctor choose the former he overthrows his Book if he choose the latter he contradicts Scripture the Law and Practice of all Nations the Judgment of all Lawyers and almost all Divines and asserts a Proposition of which the L. Bacon hath said That no Man is so poor of Judgment as to affirm it 3. It should be considered that an Usurper is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that resists opposes and fights against Authority he is so much more than a Rebel for his Opposition is greater and his Usurpation is onely prosperous Resistance all the Iniquity of Resistence does lie in the Usurpation of that Power which by divine Ordinance is invested in another for when Resisters have a lawfull Right to the Power of the Sword there is no Iniquity in their Resistence and they are not within the Apostles Prohibition that which makes them liable to Damnation is the usurping the Power of the Sword and using it against those who have a divine Commission for the Exercise of it There can be no Resistence without Usurpation and therefore Usurpers must be condemned by the Apostle as well as the Resisters and if the Resister in the Apostle does comprehend the Usurper it is impossible he should be God's Ordinance and have a Right to Subjection by virtue of his Authority To this it will be objected that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is he who resisteth a Sovereign in Possession that such a Resister usurps the Power of the Sword and is liable to Damnation but if by a prosperous Resistence he gets Possession of Sovereign Power he ceaseth to be an Usurper and has God's Authority and the former Power is no longer the Ordinance of God but is deposed by him The force of this Objection consists in these two Propositions 1. That Subjection is due to all Possessours of Sovereignty 2. That a lawful Sovereign ceases to be God's Ordinance when he is dispossessed But neither of these Propositions are affirmed by the Apostle he says not that every Sovereign in Possession is God's Ordinance but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is now no Power over us but of God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Powers now in being are ordained of God It is very obvious that these Propositions are limited to the Powers then in being and the former Propositions included in the Objection are universal and every one that has but natural Logick does know that Universals are not comprehended in particulars As to the 2d Preposition the Aposile has given us no intimation how a Sovereign that is God's Ordinance can cease to bâ— so â—or has he taught us that when he is wickedly depos'd by damn'd Resisters he is depos'd by God's Authority also This Doctrine is neither taught by the Apostle nor by any of the inspir'd Writers The whole Scripture is a perfect Stranger to these two Propositions and the great Writers for Usurpation cannot produce any Text of Scripture which contains them either expresly or virtually To except the Usurpers of Sovereignty out of the number of Resisters is therefore a precarious Exception that has no Foundation in the 13th of the Romans nor in any Chapter of the Bible 4. Let us then suppose that Reason is the sole Judg of this Controversie Whether a Sovereign dispossessed is no longer God's Ordinance And whether a prosperous Resister who has usurped the Sovereignty is ordained by God and has his Authority to govern These are not Propositions that carry their own Evidence and from what Topicks shall we deduce them From the politick Good and the Preservation of humane Society But this Proof will be as doubtfull at least as the Propositions to be prov'd not only because it is a great Question whether the publick Good can set up Kings and depose them but also because it will seem evident to many that the Encouragement of Resistence and Usurpation by conveying divine Authority upon every prosperous Resister and the unavoidable consequence of frequent Wars the greatest Evil to Society which will often end in Anarchy and the Dissolution of Society are the things which are most destructive to the publick Good and the Preservation of Society Are those Propositions then to be deduced from the Topick of Providence We all acknowledge that the World is governed by
the side of Sovereignty which is the preserver of private Property and of much greater Importance and therefore in reason ought to be better secured and the right to it be more inviolable however if there be no distinction in Scripture about the Rights of Sovereignty so neither about the Rights of Property and therefore the Silence of Scripture is of itself no Argument against it Let us suppose the Throne to be vacant and two Competitours claiming it and claiming a Right to our Allegiance how shall the Conscience of the Subject be directed in this Dispute Here the Scripture is perfectly silent and gives him no particular Directions but the Laws of the Land and the Oath of Allegiance will direct him to pay his Allegiance to the true and lawfull Heir if he knows him and the Doctour acknowledges that the Laws of the Land are the Rule of Conscience when they do not contradict the Laws of God And he acknowledges also that in such a Case we are bound to oppose the illegal and to assist the lawful Title thus far the Laws of the Land are the Rule of Conscience though the Scripture makes no distinction between a lawful and unlawful Heir But suppose farther that the false pretender does actually usurp the Throne and the lawful Heir does still demand our Allegiance Here again we suppose the Scripture to be silent and that there is no distinction in it between rightful Princes and Usurpers and then it is evident we can have no other direction but the Law of the Land and if the Law determines our Allegiance to the rightful Heir we are certainly bound to obey the Law because it contradicts not the Laws of God But the Doctour will not allow that the Scripture is perfectly silent in this matther for he objects That the Apostle generally affirms that all Power is of God and therefore if he had not intended that we should understand this as universally as he expresses it he should have limited it to legal and rightfull Powers This I have answered already there is no necessity of understanding the Apostle's words universally of all the Powers that ever were are or shall be in the World it is very probable he spake onely of the Powers then in being viz. the Roman Emperours the Words will fairly allow that Construction and it is impossible to confute it And therefore since there is no necessity of understanding the words so universally as to take in all Usurpers it is evident That Text is no sufficient Rule to direct us in that Difficulty and if there is no plainer Direction in the Bible we are left only to politick Laws and if these direct us to pay Allegiance to the lawful Prince they are a Rule to us and we must regulate our Actions by them In short the Scripture directs us to render to Sovereign Powers their due and not to resist them as it directs us to pay Obedience to Parents Masters and all that have Authority over us But which are the higher Powers and who are our Parents or Masters or are invested with any Authority over us the Scripture does not determine but when there iâ— any Competition we are left to Moral Evidence to Political Laws and to the Laws of Nature and Nations to direct us and it is no imperfection in Scripture if it does not determine such Controversies if it supposes us rational Creatures and embodied in Civil Societies and under the Direction of Laws sufficient to determine them 4. The Doctor urges That if the Apostle had intended such a Distinction between rightfull Princes and Vsupers to the fulfilling of his Precept it would be necessary for Subjects to examine the Titles of Princes and to that end to be well skilled in the History and Laws of Nations and to be able to judge between a pretended and real Right and to know exactly what gives a real Right But thâ—se are great Disputes among learned Men and how should unlearned Men understand them And I cannot think that the Resolutions of Conscience in such Matters at all Mankind are concerned in should depend on such Niceties as learned Men cannot agree in The Force of this Objection as far as I can apprehend it is this That learned Men who are skilled in Law and History do often differ in their Opinions of a legal Right and it cannot then be supposed that unlearned Men who are the greatest part of Mankind should be able to judge of it and therefore it cannot be a Rule to them But is not this Objection as strong against the Law of God as against the Laws of Nations If nothing can be a sufficient Rule to the unlearned which the unlearned cannot agree in Does it not plainly follow that the Scripture cannot be a Rule of Faith to the unlearned who are the greatest part of Mankind because the most learned do differ in interpreting it Is not this to say they are his own words that nothing can be clear in Scripture which is matter of Controversie and thus we mâ—st be either Scepticks in Religion or seek an insallible Interpreter Thus Hereticks oppose the Arâ—â—â—â—es of Faith thus Papists Dispute against the Scripture's being the Rule of Faith and yet I think it would be unjust and uncharitable to insinuate as he does against his Adversary that the Doctour has an Inclination to Rome because his Argument looks kindly towards it But the Doctor easily eludes this Consequence I grant indeed that the Resolution of Conscience ought not to depend on such Niceties of Law and History as learned Men cannot agree about and that is a Reason why legal Rights should not be the Rule of our Obedience to Princes but is this a Reason to reject the Directions of Scripture too because some Men will dispute the plainest Texts Well but are not Law and History in many things as plain as the plainest Texts in Scripture And if those can be no Rule of Conscience because learned men do raise Disputes about them does it not follow that the plainest Texts of Scripture can be no Rule of Faith if the learned raise a Controversie about them if nothing can be a sufficient Rule which has been disputed by the learned neither Law nor History nor Scripture nor even Sense or Reason are sufficient Rules for inextricable Difficulties have been raised about them by perverse Disputers He will say that legal Right depends on the Niceties of Law and History but Articles of Faith upon plain and evident Texts of Scripture and yet even those evident Texts are many of them perplex'd by the Niceties of Criticism and the subtile Interpretations of Hereticks The Scripture evidently teaches the Divinity of Christ but the Doctor knows and no Man better that the Socinians who deny it do elude the plainest Texts and by their Skill in Criticism do wrangle them into Niceties A Rule then may be plain and sufficient though learned men do pretend it is difficult
and obscure and say it depends on Niceties and the Question then is Whether humane Laws may be a plain Rule to determine the Rights and Titles of Princes for it is certain the Rule may be plain in its self though learned Men may make a Nicety of it But nothing can be a more palpable Absurdity than to say that Law cannot be a plain Rule of Right for that is to say that the Law giver cannot plainly declare his Will and that no Controversie about Right can be determin'd by Laws and if the Law may be a plain Rule to determine the Rights of Subjects may it not be aâ— plain about the Rights of Princes Have not our Laws plainly declar'd the King to be irresistible Do they not plainly invest him with the whole Power of the Militia I know that learned Men do not agree in these Points but I think the Doctor will grant that the Law is clear about them And in the nature of the Thing there is no Reason but it may be as clear about the Right and Title to the Crown for may it not be plainly declar'd by Law that the Crown shall descend by Hereditary Succession and that he who invades the Crown without this Right is an Usurper and has no Legal Right to Allegiance this we believe to be our Law and we believe it to be a plain and sufficient Rule to the Subjects But when we say that the Law is plain we do not deny but learned Men may have another Opinion of it we intend that the Law is plain in it self and may be made plain to Men of common Understanding who will take the pains to inform their Judgment and judge without Byasâ— and Interest The very design of Law is that it should be a plain Rule of Right and Practice and it is a Rule to the common People as well as to the Lawyers it is presum'd they may understand it if they will and the ignorance of Law is always presum'd to be affected and to be culpable as well as the Transgression of it To say therefore that the Law cannot be a plain Rule to the unlearned who are bound to obey it is a plain Contradiction to the very nature and end of the Law and is to charge it downright with Folly and Barbarity There are many Difficulties in Law as there are in Religion and in both the unlearned must consult the learned the Lawyers and Divines but they must judge also for themselves and judge rightly at their peril if a Lawyer or a Judge advise a Man to commit Treason and tell him it is lawful the Law will nevertheless condâ—mn him as a Traitor The Law no doubt requires our Allegiance to the legal King but he who should pay his Allegiance to another King though he should think him to be the legal King his Mistake would be no good Plea in Law against an Indictment for Treason the reason is because the Law is suppos'd to be sufficiently promulg'd to all and therefore the ignorance of it is inexcusable In short I demand was not the Law of the Land sufficient to inform all Men that K. James the First had a legal Right to the Crown and that Charles the First and the Second had it successively after him was there any honest understanding Man in England who ever doubted of their Right and that when the two last were actually excluded from the Possession of it Nay was the Right of K. James the Second either unknown or uncertain to any of that Character I think the Doctor will confess that the legal Right of these Princes was among all honest Men certain and unquestionable and thence it evidently follows that the Law of the Land may be a clear Rule of the Prince's Right and the Subjects Obedience and if the Law may sufficiently direct us how to distinguish between Rightful Princes and Usurpers there is no need of any other Direction But though the Law be in it self a sufficient Rule as far as the intention of it reaches yet Controversies may also arise aâ— in other things so in the Right to the Crown of which there could be no foresight and therefore no Provision about them and further it sometimes happens that when the Law is clear the due application of it is doubtful and difficult the matter of Fact being disputed when the Rule of Right is uncontested Thus in those Kingdoms where there is a known and uncontroverted Rule of Succession yet there are sometimes Controversies about the matters of Fact which are necessary to the application of it as for instance in Hereditary Kingdoms who is the right Heir in Elective who is duly elected When such 〈…〉 ases happen as are beyond the Provision of Law and for which there could b 〈…〉 o Provision as in the Disputes of Fact if there be no Legislative Authority to determine them as it is thought there can be none in the Disputes about the right to Succession there is no other way but for every Man to judge for himself to examine the Competitors Evidence for their Claim and Title to judge impartially and to act accordingly But it follows not hence that Law is an insufficient Rule because it prevents not or decides not all Controversies about Right for neither can Scripture which we acknowledge to be a sufficient Rule in Religion decide all Controversies that relate unto it for instance it requires Christians to obey them that have the Rule over them not every one surely that intrudes himself into the Office of a Ruler but only those that are lawfully called to it but who those are the Scripture does not determine that is a dispute concerning matter of Fact and must be decided by such Evidence as can be had concerning it But when the matter of Right and matter of Fact is clear as ordinarily they are in the Rights of Sovereigns to their Crowns then there is a plain Direction for the Allegiance of Subjects But in cases extraordinary when Right and Fact are doubtful and there is no such Evidence concerning them as may direct honest and understanding Men to the right Object of their Allegiance in such Cases it is agreed That if either of the Competitors be in Possession the Subjects must pay their Allegiance to the Possessor for the Laws of Nature and Nations declare Possession to be a just Right when there is not a better and Allegiance certainly is due where there is a just and lawful Right to it And thus the unavoidable Defects of Political Constitutions are supplied by such Rules as are founded on the Law of Nature and the Consent of Nations and therefore if the Scripture has only required Obedience to the higher Powers in general and has left us to the direction of other Laws to determine which those Powers are to whom our Obedience is due we are not left to Niceties and Uncertainties but have as clear and plain direction as the nature of the Thing
relate to Civil Society As for God's Decrees they are unknown to us till they are fulfilled and when they are we can never know whether they are positive or permissive whether they require our Submission or Resistence but by the nature of the Events Usurpations are decreed by God and so are Robberies so is Antichrist and if there be no difference between these Decrees as there may be none and there can be none gathered out of Daniel or out of any other part of Scripture it follows necessarily that God's Decreeing of Usurpers infers not any Obligation of Subjection to them Thus I have done with his Argument from Dreams Decrees and Prophecies and I hope it appears that the Doctour's Commentary upon Daniel does by no means make good his Commentary upon the Apostle 8. He argues farther That this Distinction that only legal not usurped Powers are of God had made the Apostle's Direction signifie nothing for the great Question had still been undetermined what Powers are of God and what they must obey if some Powers be of God and some not The Apostle directed the Roman Christians to be subject to the Roman Powers then in being and if there was any Dispute whether they were lawfull Powers or Usurpers he plainly determines it by declaring they were God's Ordinance and that Subjection was therefore due to them he tells them the Powers then in being were ordained by God and that was enough to silence all Disputes about them The Doctour confesses That had the Apostle confin'd himself to the then present Powers it would have directed them at that time but says he it would have been no general Direction to Christians in other Ages to obey the present Powers it would have been very convenient for some Men if the Apostle had given such a Direction but what if he hath not Why then we have no Direction in Scripture what to do in such disputed Cases unless by a Parity of Reason Well suppose that we have not the Direction is sufficient if we will be content with what may be reasonably expected St. Paul required the Christians to pay Subjection to the Roman Emperours who were lawfull Powers and the Reason upon which he enjoins it extends the Obligation to Subjects in all Ages and Nations who are under the government of such lawful Powers But the Apostle has not directed us to distinguish what Powers are lawful neither have we any Directions to find out true Parents lawful Husbands Masters and Pastors and yet I think the Scripture is not to be charged with Imperfection The Scripture prescribes the Duties of these several Relations but gives no Rules to distinguish the Relatives the True and Lawful from the False and Counterfeit that depends upon the infinite variety of Fact of Customs and of Laws and therefore cannot be comprehended in general Rules so does the Distinction between lawful Powers and unlawful it depends upon the various Constitutions of Civil Politics and often upon Matters of Fact and therefore that Distinction could not be bounded and defined within Rules nor consequently be determined in Scripture In short it may be inferred by parity of Reason from the Apostle that the supreme Powers in every civil Government are God's Ordinance and irresillible But which are the supreme Powers he hath left to be determined by the Laws of every Government The Doctor himself hath told the World That whatever Power in any Nation according to the Fundamental Laws of its Government cannot and ought not to be resisted that is the supreme Power of that Nation the higher Powers to which the Apostle requires us to be subject And is there any Nation in the World which hath made an Usurper irresistible by a Fundamental Law The Doctor may recant this but he will pardon me if I am still of his Opinion But the Doctor is sure the only Direction in Scripture is to submit to those who are in the actual Administration of Government And I am sure there is no such Direction there and which is more the Doctor himself is sure of it for he is sure that Usurpers who have the actual Administration of Government without the consent of the People have no Title to Subjection He seems to lay stress upon those Words of the Apostle At God's Ministers attending continually upon this very Thing the Emperors were then actually Administring the Government and that was their Business as God's Ministers But does the Apostle say that Sovereign Powers are not God's Ministers when they are hindred from their Business though they are still attending upon it and endeavour to remove the Impediment Do they cease to be God's Ministers because their Subjects are Rebels Obedience is required to Spiritual Rulers because they watch over Souls Heb. 13. 11. Are the People then discharged from their Duty if they will not suffer their Pastors to watch over them but separate from them And are the Pastors no longer God's Ministers because they can't exercise their Function But there is not the least notice given us of any kind of Duty to a Prince removed from the Administration of Government whatever his Right may be Neither say I is there any the least notice of paying any Duty to Usurpers no more is there of paying Obedience to a Father or a Master remov'd from the Government of their Families or to a Bishop removed from his Church by Persecution there is no more than this that the Scripture requires Obedience to them and neither Scripture nor Reason does teach us that when they are violently removed from the actual Administration of their respective Governments the Relation ceases and the Duty with it And thus much may be said for Sovereign Princes Subjection is required to them but neither Scripture nor Reason do inform us that the Relation is extinguished when they are violently deposed On the contrary we are expresly required to give Princes their dues and what those are we must learn from the Laws of Nature and Nations for the Scripture has not taught us But we have no Example in Scripture that any People were ever blamed for submitting to Vsurpers In the 2d of Samuel we have the People of the Jews submitting to Absalom in the 13th of Revel the People of all Nations to Anti-christ but in neither do we find that they are blamed for it But I wonder when he was heaping up these negative Arguments that he did not remember that if they are good for any thing they overthrow his own Hypothesis he maintains that Allegiance is not due to all Usurpers though all his Arguments from Providence and Scripture do prove it but only to those that are setled by a general consent and yet there is no Rule no Example not an Iota for this Distinction in Scripture But this was not convenient to be remember'd for then he had lost these pretty Arguments But in Scripture we have Examples of Subjects being condemn'd for refusing
but that no private Man can be who is under the Government of Laws and has not ligal Possession and when he has whether Right or Wrong he must not be violently dispossessed again But 1. If we may suppose a state of Nature we may suppose a private Man who is not under the Government of civil Laws to be throughly settled in an Estate which is by Right another's and then the Case is parallel the unjust Possessor has a Providential Right and being under no Government his claim by Providence is the same as the Doctor makes for Usurpers and it proves a divine Right to the purchase of Injustice 2. When an Estate is unjustly possessed and yet the just Right cannot possibly be proved by legal Evidence here is a through legal Settlement of the unjust Possession for which there is no legal redress and therefore this Case is parallel in that respect to the Usurpation of a Kingdom the Question upon it is Whether the Intruder has a divine Right by Providence and may therefore lawfully keep what God has given him 'T is true the injured Person cannot restore himself by Force because he has no Authority to use if but 't is certain the unjust Selzor is bound to Restitution though the Law cannot compel him and therefore has acquired no Right by his providential Possession And so is the Usurper of a Crown obliged in Conscience to restore it and that is a plain Demonstration that he has no Right to it but if he will not restore it the dispossessed Prince has Authority to compel him he may make a lawful War upon him he has still the Power of the Sword and that is a Demonstration that he has God's Authority And thus much concerning the Objection about Thieves and Pirates But there remain somethings more to be considered The Doctor observes in his Vindication That his Adversary is blundered for want of clear and distinct Notions concerning legal Powers and he pretends to clear all the Difficulties by stating the Terms Now says he We may understand legal either with respect to the Laws of Nature the Law of Nations or the Law of a particular Kingdom and in this last Sense legal is understood by all Men who understand themselves in this Controversie of legal Powers Well if I understand not my self I cannot help it for I understand as well as I am able and by legal Powers I have always understood such Powers as are according to Law either the Law of God of Nature of Nations or of political Societies In the present Controversie the great Question is to what Powers our Allegiance is due we think it is due to legal Powers and if it would be clearly proved that an Usurper is a legal Power according to any Law whatsoever this Controversie would be ended He grants however That legal Powers may be understood in a larger Notion as that may be said to be legal which is agreable to the Laws of Nature and Nations and he adds In this Sense Submission may make a legal King of him who by the Laws of the Land can be only King de Facto Now this as he says is worth considering and a very little consideration will shew the Inconsistency of this Doctrine For according to the Doctor 's Hypothesis the King de Facto has a legal Right by the Laws of Nature and Nations and the dispossessed Prince has still a legal Right by the Laws of the Kingdom And hence it follows undeniably that at the same time two opposite Kings may have a legal Right to the same Throne the one by the Law of Nature and Nations and the other by the Law of the Kingdom But it is easie to shew that this does imply a manifest Repugnancy and I will exemplifie it in the instances of Charles and Oliver Charles is the legal King by the Law of England and Oliver who is in Possession with the Submission of the People by the Laws of Nature and Nations and hence it follows that Charles has a Right to be King and Oliver has a Right to be King but Charles has no Right because it is in Oliver and Oliver has no Right because it is in Charles But though Charles has a Right to the Crown yet he has no Right to possess it for Oliver is a rightful Possessor of it and yet he has no Right to keep it because Charles has a Right to take it from him There cannot possibly be a greater absurdity either in Law or Nature than to say that the Possessor and the Dispossessed the Plaintiff and Defendant have at the same instant a true and real Right to the same thing in Question When two opposite Rights are pleaded the one is undoubtedly none if the Possessor has a good Right by the Law of Nature the Right of the Dispossessed must needs be extinguished for he cannot have a Right to possess that which is anothers by the Law of Nature and if he has no Right to possess he has no Right to recover and his legal Right at last is only a Right to nothing If the Doctor therefore can prove that his Usurper has a Right by the Law of Nature and Nations I will acknowledge that Allegiance is due to him and there is an end of the Controversie but in all his Harangues about the state of Nature the state of Force and the Submission of the People there is no Argument that proves it In a state of Nature when Men are free from any Government a free Consent or a forced Submission are enough to make rightful Princes by the Law of Nature But the Case is different when rightful Princes are established and Subjects are sworn to pay Allegiance to them for then the Subjects are not sui juris they have no Right to consent and therefore their Consent is nothing But a state of Force the Doctor thinks is parallel to a state of Nature and when a Nation is Conquered or private Subjects are under the Power of an Usurper then he thinks that force will justifie Submission and so do I too and his own instance does sufficiently prove it for he tells us When we happen to fall into the Hands of Robbers where the Government cannot protect us we may very innocently for our own Preservation promise and swear to them such Things as are against the Laws of the Land and which iâ— would be unlawful for us to do in other Circumstances It is lawful no doubt to submit to Robbers and in some Cases it may be lawful to dispense with a humane Law for our own Preservation because it waâ— not the intention of the Law given to oblige in cases of Extremity But hence he infers as he thinks with greater Reason That if the Government can't protect it Subjects from a greater Force they are al liberty to submit to the greater Power Where the greater Reason lies I know not the force of an Usurper is no
greater than the force of a Robber is to those who are under it and if Force does justifie Submission there is the same Reason for Submitting to both But what is all this to Allegiance which is a great deal more than Submission Force will justifie Submission to Robbers but will it justifie the assisting of Robbers or the joyning in Robbery with them Or will it justifie the assisting of an Usurper against a rightful Sovereign But our Obligations to Hitmane Government are reasonably suppos'd to except the Case of greater Force What in all Cases whatsoever The Casuists teach us that there are many Cases in which Humane Laws do oblige even unto certain Death as particularly when to undergo the danger of Death is the express Obligation of the Law and such is the Obligation of legal Allegiance as appears from the ancient Oath of Ligeance wherein the Subject is sworn to bear true Faith to the King of Life and Member and terreite Honour that is as the Lord Coke expounds it until the letting out of the last drop of our dearest Heart Blood 2. When it is notorious that the Tyrant Power threatens Death to Subjects to tempt them to transgress the Law and to bid defiance to the Authority of their Superiour they are then oblig'd to obey and dye the Law does then require our Fortitude and Patience and the Lawgiver cannot be presum'd to allow the renouncing of his own Authority or to make an Exception that Subjects may become Enemies to it But the dissolution of the Government or the Power of the Prince to protect himself or his Subjects in his Government puts an end to the Obligation of Oaths This Assertion depends on his Fundamental Principle that a dispossessed Prince has no Right to Allegiance with that Principle it stands or falls I shall only observe that it follows thence that our Oaths are cancell'd by every Rebellion for that as far as it goes is a dissolution of the Government and it follows also that when a Subject falls under the Power of Robbers who require him upon pain of Death to renounce his Sovereign he is then at liberty to renounce him and to swear Allegiance to the Robber for the Prince has no Power to protect his Subject in his Government and that puts an end to the Obligation of his Oath He asserts that every private Man or any City or Garrison when they are overpower'd may submit to the Conqueror and become his Subjects which implies that they may lawfully transfer their Allegiance to him But pag. 40. he affirms that while the Prince is in the actual Administration of the Government though the Subject be violently torn from him yet this relation of a Subject may still continue because he has a Prince to whom he is related and thence it necessarily follows that he owes the Duty of a Subject to his lawful Prince and therefore cannot tranfer it to the Conqueror How shall we reconcile these Repugnancâ—es But if his Arguments from Force are valid they will justify the Translation of Allegiance wherever there is Force enough to exact it as he saith himself it is no matter from what quarter the Force comes if a Man is under a Power which he cannot resist which will undoâ— and ruine him if he transfer not his Allegiance it is allone to him as if his King and Countrey were absolutely conquer'd and these are invincible Arguments for Allegiance not only to a Ket a Cromwell or a Mussianello but also to a Captain of the Banditi or the Rapparees when he gets a Subject in his Power But we have nothing to do with the Cases of irrisistible Force and Conquest suppose a Nation in America under a King acknowledg'd by all to be lawful and the Subjects bound to him by the strictest Ties and Oaths of Allegiance notwithstanding which they call in a Foreign Prince to invade him actually rebel against him force him to leave his Kingdom for the Safety of his Life afterwards a Convention of the Estates assembles which solemnly depose their Sovereign and place his Enemy in the Throne and proclaim him over the Nation and enjoin all that have Offices and Preferments upon pain of forfelting them to swear Allegiance to him and this they voluntarily doe without any force upon them In such a Case as this to talk of Force and Conquest is only Banter the Subjects voluntarily rebel depose and abjure their Sovereign and if all this be Perjury and the highest Injustice iâ— can be no Warrant or Excuse to particular Persons that if they had not comply'd they had lost their Preferments or that they follow a Multitude to doe Evil. The Doctor lays the whole stress of the Controversy upon the Consent and Submission of the People he annexes and limits God's Authority to it it is his great Criterion of a Settlement and he makes it a Legal Right by the Law of Nature and Nations But what he means or whether he means the same thing by Submission and Consent we are left to conjecture we know that Oliver had the intire Submission of the Nation the Doctor acknowledges that it was lawful to submit and since they actually submitted it follows from his Principle that Oliver had a Legal Right by the Laws of Nature and Nations A National Submission as he says must be declar'd by one means or other I confess Submission to Oliver was not declar'd by a Recognition of a Free legal Parliament but it was declar'd by the quiet and peaceable living of all the Estates and of the whole Nation under his Government by their paying him Taxes to support it by their taking Commissions and receiving Justice and Protection from it and if all this be no declaration of Submission there can be no such thing in the World no Recognitions nor Oaths of Allegiance can be equivalent for those we see are taken and made in many Senses they are often obtain'd by Menaces and Promises by Cabal and Faction and it is clear from History that the Nation never thought themselves obliged by them to adhere to Usurpers and yet the quiet and peaceable Submission of a whole Nation to a Government in the Case of Cromwell is of no validity with the Doctor to entitle him to a legal Right and God's Authority There is another Difficulty about Consent and Submission which the Doctor may resolve when he pleases whether the Consent of the whole or the major part of a Society be requir'd to the translation of Allegiance or whether a lesser Part a County a Hundred a Village or a City may submit for its self and make a King by it self and pay their Allegiance to him If a single Town should make a little King for it self according to the Doctor 's Notion there would be a Settlement of the Government within it self so he says Alexander's Authority was setled at Jerusalem before Darius was finally conquer'd
and yet Jerusalem was no more to the Persian Empire than a Village is to England and thus upon the late Abdication as we are taught to call it there might have been a new Heptarchy of Governments nay as many as there are Counties Towns or Villages in the Kingdom every Government would have been throughly 〈…〉 in it self even without a peaceable Possessim and Settlement Thus when Monmouth was at Taunton and the People generally submitted to him as their King his Government was setled in that Town and private particular Men being under the Power of the new King might have lawfully paid Allegiance to him The Doctor thinks it very absurd to found the Right of Government upon Humane Laws or the Legal Consent of the People but if they consent against Law their Consent does make a Lawful King by the Law of Nature and Nations he accounts it a monstrous Absurdity to say that God cannot give his Authority himself without the People nor otherwise than as they have directed him by their Laws if Princes receive their Authority from Humane Laws he cannot imagine that their Power is any more than a Trust for which they are accountable he thinks it a bold Contradiction to say that God cannot remove or set up King 's against Law This is shackling of his Providence and in fine whoever will confine the Power of God in setting up Kings to Humane Laws ought not to be disputed with But now instead of Humane Laws insert the Consent of the People against Law and all these Absurdities and Contradictions are easily reconcil'd to Reason and Religion and he that will not shackle God's Authority and Providence to Submission and Consent shall not be thought fit to be disputed with I grant that the Laws of Nature and Nations do make him a lawful King who has the Consent of a Free People who are under no antecedent Obligation But when they are they have no Power to Consent and then their Consent is a Nullity by the Law of Nature it self for it is a Rule in that Law That Actions which are forbidden by it for defect of Power are not only unlawful but also void this is true in Contracts and Acts of Donation in Vows and Dedition and all relie upon the same Reason He that cannot give 〈…〉 he that cannot be given cannot contract or be contracted with Therefore in what Cases soever the People have no Power to consent to the advancement of a new Sovereign their consent is nothing in Law and therefore cannot make a rightful King according to the Laws of Nature and Nations No 〈…〉 suppose as before that a Rebellious People by the assistance of Foreign Power drive their King out of his Kingdom refuse to restore him or so much as to treat with him and then set up an Usurper over them here the Question is whether their Advancement of the Usurper was lawful and whether they had Power to consent to it if the Doctor can prove the People have Power to rebel depose and set up Usurpers let us see him prove it but if he cannot prove it he will never prove that such a People had Power to consent or that a consent which is nothing can effect any thing can create â—a lawful Right by the Law of Nature or Nations their consent is void and unlawful it is a breach of their Allegiance and that cannot absolve them from it it is Perjury and that is no release from their Oaths and in short it binds them only to Repentance and Restitution He allows that the lawful Prince who is dispossessed has a lawful Right to make War for the recovery of his Kingdom I demand Is not this lawful by the Laws of Nature and Nations It hâ— lawful by those Laws or by none for it is no proper Matter for political Laws and they prescribe nothing about it But the Doctor will grant that and if he will not it is easie to prove it by a cloud of Witnesses and by the practice of Nations But now if the dispossessed Prince by the Law of Nature and Nations has a Right to recover his Kingdom he has certainly a Right by the same Laws to possess it and consequently the Usurper has no Right to it by those Laws unless they are contradictory to themselves by giving two incompatible Rights to the same Possession And this is a plain Demonstration whatever becomes of the Usurper in the Vindication that the Usurper in the Case of Allegiance is not a rightful Prince according to the Laws of Nature and Nations One thing more may seem necessary to be considered because it looks like Argument from Reason and that is the Discourse concerning the Relation between a King and a Subject but I have the Doctor 's Warrant to let it pass as a logical Banter the result of it is this that the Fundamentum Relationâ—s is God's Authority and that says he is always annexed to the settled Possession of the Throne but this again is the Fundamental Proposition in Dispute between us I have endeavoured to answer all the Arguments that are drawn from Scripture and Reason to provâ— it and the Reader is left to judge whether they are sufficiently Answered ADVERTISEMENT THe Reader may please to take Notice That the following Postscript doth not relate to this Book nor yet to the Author but it was an Addition to the Answer to Dr. Sherlock in Defence of the Case of Allegiance to the King in Possession and written to the same Friend but the Impression of it being then prevented it was thought convenient to annex it to this POSTSCRIPT IT will Sir be no small Surprize to you to tell you after all that the Case of Allegianeâ— to a King in Possession with all the Mistakes Nonsense and Trifling which the Doctour now discovers in it had notwithstanding the Doctour's Imprimatur before it saw the Light as you may fully assure your self from the following Testimony of a Person of very good Credit who some time since gave me this following Account The Case of Allegiance to a King in Possession in M. S. was recommended to Dr. Sherlock who read it over and mightily approved it and wished it were then actually printed especially for the sake of Dr. who had written a Letter to him which he also then read wherein he endeavoured to persuade him that Allegiance was due to the Regnant Power He urged to have it printed as soon as might be and that Care might be taken that Dr. should have a Copy which shews a strange Temper in the Master to treat a Book and an Authour at such a rate which a little before he did so approve and commend The Authour ought to take this for a very great Honour done him by the Doctour as great as if the Book had been Licenced under his hand and it will be some Comfort to him to hear that once he stood so fair in the Doctor 's
the deposed and banished Princes from Violence he secures their Title too as it was in Nebuchadnezzar ' s Vision the Tree is cut down but the stump of the Roots is left in the Earth The Kingdom shall be sure to them after they shall know that the heavens do rule Dan. 4. 26. In those times the Right and Title of the natural Prince were of such importance that there could be no Settlement of the Usurper as long as a stump of the Tree remained but Times and Principles are altered and now says the Doctor We must not take the consideration of Right into the Settlement of Government for a Prince may be settled without legal Right and when he is so God has made him our King and requires our Obedience The Doctor no doubt may consider Settlement without Right and then declare that a Prince may be settled without it But any one else may consider it with relation to Right if he pleases for a legal Settlement is I hope a Settlement and 't is as certain that the extinction of all legal Claims and Competitors will contribute much to a through Settlement We may consider Settlement in a natural and in a legal or moral Sense in relation to Possession and in relation to Right He that dwells in a House and keeps out the right Owner may be said to be settled in it because he keeps Possession but enquire in Westminister-hall whether this be good Settlement and the query will be easily resolved Oliver was settled in some sense at White-hall so he was in the Government but that Settlement was thought to be of no validity in Law and Conscience nor did it give him a divine Right to the Palace and the Throne Settlement is a Word of manifold and ambiguous Meaning and must be always interpreted according to the nature of the Matter to which it is applied when civil Property is the subject Matter the very nature of the Thing requires it to be understood in the civil or legal Signification of it and then as it has been well observed it denotes two Things peaceable Possession and legal Right This is undeniable in relation to private Rights And why does it not require that Interpretation in respect to politick Dominion Is that the sense of all Lawyers when they speak of private Estates And is there any Lawyer that ever applied that Term to a Government usurp'd and possess'd without Right Is there any other good Author that called such a Possession a through Settlement The Lawyers have always considered Right as necessary to the firm Establishment of any Possession and it would be a contradiction to their Profession to consider otherwise for if Right be not requisite to the Settlement of Possessions there is an end of all Law and there is no need nor use of it in the World When a Man is Possessor malae fidei and such are all Usurpers the Lawyers do not account him to be throughly settled in his Possession for as he is bound in Conscience to Restitution so he may be ejected by Law and they never look upon him as settled till he becomes a lawful Possessor and has acquired a legal Right by Prescription of a 100 Years or time immemorial in which they presume a Dereliction of the true Proprietor Their Doctrine is the same concerning the Possession of the Rights of Sovereignty they never supposed it to be established without Right they affirm the Usurper as long as he is such is bound to Restitution that the rightful Prince may lawfully eject him by War that the presumption of Law is always for the lawful Prince that the Usurper cannot prescribe a Right nisi accesserit praescriptioni scientia patientiaque ipsius Principis without the knowledge and permission of the Prince and lastly that these are never to be presumed but in case of perpetual and undisturbed Possession for a 100 Years or a time exceeding the memory of Man Tyrants says Petrus Gregorius after they have Dethroned th◠true and rightful Princes are yet desirous of their Titles and they make use of Parliaments or Assemblies of the People to acquire them yet they are Tyrants still and are comprehended in the Laws that relate to Tyrants unless as some think they abdicate their Power and submit to their Judgment who can confer lawful Sovereignty upon them or unless after their Vsurpation they with their Posterity prescribe a Right to the Sovereignty by the Possession of a 100 Years or more Thus the Civil Lawyers And if we may believe Grotius their Doctrine is confirmed by the Law of Nations He says it is probable that this Law was introduced by the consent of Nations that immemorial Possession peaceably enjoy'd without Interruption Omnino dominium transferret should to all intents transfer Dominion he shews by many instances that this was often pleaded by Nations those out of Isocrates are apposite to our Purpose in his Archidamus he argues the Right of the Lacedemonians to Messana from their Possession of it for some hundreds of Years and he lays down this Rule as most certain and confessed by all That Possessions both private and publick become proper and patrimonial if they have been held for a long time and in his Oration to Philip 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When length of time had made the Possession firm and settled These and other Instances that might be produced do shew it has been the Sense of Mankind that Prescription is requisite to establish Possessions without an original Right and that there could be no Settlement till a new Right were introduced for if Dominion might have been transfered without Right the introduction of the Right of Prescription by the Law of Nations would have been superstuous But the Law of England is yet more rigid in requiring legal Right it differs from the Civil Law in Matter of Prescription for by the Common Law Prescription maketh no Right in Land but the difference is in favour of Right against Possession which cannot in any tract of time advance to a legal Settlement when an antecedent legal Right can be made out against it And can we think that the Law is more careful of private Property than of Sovereignty of Lands and Tenements than of the Royal Crown and Dignity That it has provided that the Rights of the Subjects be Sacred Inviolable and Eternal and hath left the Crown to every one that can catch it though all the Estates in the Realm are held in Fee of the Crown and are deriv'd Originally from it On the contrary the Favour and Presumption of the Law is always for the King no time is allowed to prescribe against his Rights it is the first Principle of the Law that his Crown is Hereditary it is entailed on his Posterity for ever Descent is declared to be a Title stronger than all others it being an undoubted Title made by Law it cannot be defeated by
any other Title Allegiance is not due to the Crown but to the natural Person of the King which is ever accompany'd with the Politick Capacity it is due to the natural Body by Nature God's Law and Man's Law cannot be forfeited nor renounced by any Means it is inseparable from the Person and it has been said to be due to him even when he is driven out of his Kingdom And lastly we have the Resolution of all the Lord's and Commons in the Case of the Claim of the Duke of York against Henry the Sixth that an illegal Settlement of the Crown by Acts of Parliament and the Settlement of 60 Years Possession without interruption were not sufficient to defeat the legal Title nor to settle the Usurper's against it Further it appears from the whole Sâ—…ies of our History from the constant practice of Usurpers and from the Acts and Recognitions of their Parliaments that no Possession whatsoever without a legal Right was ever esteemed a through Settlement by the Parliaments the People or by the Usurpers themselves they have always pretended to a Legal Right and got themselves to be declared Kings dejure by their Parliaments for the satisfaction of the People to what purpose but that they knew it was the surest Foundation of their Power that the People could never be brought to a plenary Submission nor their Government be throughly setled without a general Persuasion of it These Recognitions of Parliaments were as illegal as the Usurpations they could not alter the nature of things lawful Parliaments did always declare them to be invalid and null the whole Body of the Nation have rejected and made no account of them and they never yet were effectual to establish Usurpation But they who had no Right thought the Pretente and Opinion of it necessary to a Settlement they knew that Parliaments were the best Instruments to delude the People and therefore they made them to recognize Force and Usurpation to be Right and Inheritance and this constant practice of Usurpers is an evident Proof that it has been the Universal Sense oâ—â— the Nation that without a Legal Right there could be no hopes of Settlement Lastly I appeal to the Sense and Reason of Mankind whether according to the natural course of things there can be a through Settlement of an Usurped Power while the rightful Prince is actually prosecuting his Right Mankind are not so degenerate nor so much in love with Oppression and Injustice as to have no regard to Right nothing is more natural than to commiserate and assist the Oppressed and that may well be expected in the case of a Rightful Sovereign to whom the Subjects have sworn Assistance and whom they know to be wrongfully deposed The generality of Men will never so far shake off the bands of Reason and Equity as to think they are loos'd from the Obligations of rendring every Man his due and doing as we would be done by Brave and Generous Spirits will never be wanting who will dare even to dye for a Righteous Cause and will scorn to abandon a Prince because he is unfortunate Men may be câ—â—eated and deluded for a while with the plausible Pretences of Religion and 〈◊〉 Publick Safety but time does always discover the Imposture and when once the Fig-Leaves are remov'd the Usurpation and Injustice will be expos'd naked to their view and their Abhorrence will be heightned by the Briars and Thorns the Sweat and Labour and Misery they have produc'd and then they will strive who shall be the first in bringing back their King all this is natural to imagine what has often happened and what may be reasonably expected Usurpers are always in the state of Robbers they may be well arm'd and strongly fortisied but they can never be secure Usurpation will never want Enemies not Right its Friends and Defenders Nature and Religion and the Common Interest of Mankind do conspire for Right and Justice against Injury and Oppression and 't is not likely they should be establish'd in spite of so powerful a Combination Lastly it was never yet known in this Nation that a Legal Right to the Crown when prosecuted was totally deserted or a through Settlement acquir'd without it and therefore I conclude that Reason and Experience do assure us that Right is necessary to a through Settlement The Result is this that seeing the Civil Law the Law of Nations the Law of England the Practice of Usurpers the constant Sense of the People and even Reason it self do unanimously agree in proving the necessity of Right to Settlement it is very unreasonable to consider Settlement without it or when we meet with it in any Author to give it such an Interpretation as is warranted by no good Writer and is contradictory to Law and Practice Reason and Experience and when on the contrary it may fairly be interpreted in a sense agreeable to them The Doctor concludes this Section with repeating his former Prejudice and insinuating a new one That his Principles are so very useful in all Revolutions that Subjects have reason to wish them true and to examine over again those strict Principles of Loyalty which if pursued to their just consequences must unavoidably in some junctures sacrifice whole Kingdoms at least all Subjects who pretend to this degree of Loyalty and Conscience to the ill Fortune of their Princes Now this is nothing but Wheedling and Prevaricating if his Principles be false it is certain they are not useful to the Good of Mankind and 't is as impious to wish them true as to wish that Vice were Virtue as absurd as to wish that an Ox were an Elephant His Principles are useful enough to them who think sleeping in a whole Skin should be preferred to all Obligations and such is that Principle which was once vouched by the Devil Skin for Skin and all that a Man hath c. But the strict Principles of Loyalty are such as may sacrifice Kingdoms to the ill Fortune of a Prince so may the Principle of Passive Obedience to the Cruelty of a Prince so may the Doctrine of the Cross to the Fury of a persecuting Prince so it is possible that Obedience to any Law of God oâ— Nature may in some junctures be the destruction of a Kingdom must the Laws of God and Nature be therefore cancelled Must the Doctrine of the Cross and of Non-resistence be therefore rejected as destructive to Society Must the Principles of Honour Loyalty and Fidelity be sacrificed to ill Fortune Is our Allegiance due to Fortune And if a righteous Cause be unsuccessful is it our Duty to abandon and bind our selves by Oaths to oppose it We may thus briefly answer his Objection We will discharge our Duty and leave the Event to God But as for the Doctor 's Principles they are exactly the same with Mr. Ascham's and because he professes greatly to reverence the profund Judgment of Bishop Sanderson I will conclude
Providence but this can be no Proof that whoever gains any thing by any concurrence of Providence has God's Authority to keep it If it were these two Consequences would be inevitable 1. That God does authorize all the Injustice and all the Wickedness in the World for no Man can commit Wickedness without some concurrence of God's Providence and if that be a proof of his Authority then it necessarily follows that God does authorize it 2. That there is no such thing as the Obligation of Justice for iâ— there be no doubt it binds us to render to every Man his due but if it is impossible to get the Possession of any thing without God's Providence and that is always a Conveyance of his Authority then he who has the Possession of another's Property has acquired a Divine Right to it and there can be no Obligation upon him to restore it And in short nothing can be due to a Man which he has not in his Possession and therefore since suum ouiquâ— cribuere is the onely Office of Justice and that Office is impracticable it follows that Justice is only an empty Word that has no significancy in it These are the desperate consequences of that Doctrine which overturn at once the very Foundations of all Religion civil Society and Morality and therefore we are as sure that it is false as that God is holy that Justice is a Duty or that Wrong is not Right nor Vice Vertue Providential concurrence thereof to the gaining of any Possession is in its self no Proof of the conveyance of divine Authority it neither deprives the former Possessor of his Right nor transfers it to the new one this is undeniable in the Case of private Property and there is equal Reason to allow it in the Case of Sovereignty Private Property and Sovereignty are different Things indeed but the notion of Right apply'd to both is the same and the concurrence of Providence to the acquiring of both the same and therefore if Providence extinguishes not the Right to one neither does it so to the other if it gives not a divine Right to Robbers neither does it to Usurpers Since the influence and co-operation of Providence is the same in bringing any one to the unjust Possession of a Purse a House a City and a Kingdom and it is impossible for Reason to observe any difference as to the conveyance of Power though there be a difference in the extension of Power proportionably to the Usurpation it necessarily follows that from the precise Consideration of Providence Reason cannot possibly distinguish between God's Ordinance and Permission his conveying Authority upon an Usurper and not upon a Robber his establishing the Possession of a Throne by divine Donation when he gives no Establishment to the Possession of a Robber But on the contrary Reason seems to assure us That God's Providence does never give Authority to Injustice that Robbery is not God's Ordinance that great Robbers are no more authorized by him than little Robbers that as Stealing of it self introduces no Right so neither does Rebelling noâ— Usurping that Prosperity in Wickedness is no Proof of a divine Commission lastly that if resisting God's Ordinance be unlawful it is unlawful to carry on and continue that Resistance it is unlawful to resist a King so far as to depose him and to usurp his Throne and if it be unlawful to resist and to usurp it is unlawful to continue the Usurpation by keeping Possession against the rightful Sovereign for that is only a continuation of his Injustices which increases his Crime and if it be unlawful to resist a lawful Prince to depose him to usurp his Throne and to continue the Usurpation it seems evident beyond all Contradiction that an Usurper while he is such is never established by God's Authority for that is never granted to unlawful Acts or Possessions In short If it be unjust to usurp the Usurper is bound to Repentance and Restitution he who has unjustly invaded another's Right is bound in Justice to restore it And if the Usurper is bound to restore the Power he has usurped he cannot have a divine Right to that which he is bound to restore to another and consequently cannot have the Establishment of divine Authority This to me is the voice of Reason and if Reason is so far from proving that an Usurper is God's Ordinance that it proves the contrary if that Proposition is not to be found in the 13th of the Rom. nor in any part of the Bible if an Usurper be properly a Resister of God's Ordinance if the Examples in Scripture and the Law of Nations do prove it lawful to resist him and finally if the Powers to whom the Apostle requires Subjection were lawful Powers than it is evident that the Rule of the Apostle must be understood of lawful Powers and that there is as much evidence for excepting of Usurpers as there is for excepting Thieves or Rebels Thus there is Reason to except Usurpers out of the Rule and this will appear more reasonable when we have examined the Doctor 's Arguments against it 1. He objects that the Criticism between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not do because they signifie the same thing in scripture either Force and Powers or Authority But he has produc'd no Instance to shew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it denotes Civil Authority does signify Possession of Power without Right he knows the Word is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 licet and therefore properly it must signifie only Lawful Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is far from being spoken concerning Civil Authority and when the same Apostle declares that our Saviour was exalted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only in this World but also in that which is to come I hope he spake not of Usurped Powers unless there are such also among the Angels in Heaven Every one knows that Force and Authority are two different things and if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be applied to signifie Force and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Authority the Propriety of the Words will bear it but we depend not upon that Distinction to exclude Usurpers though it is manifest that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture must be sometimes necessarily understood to signifie only Lawful Power as Matth. 21. 23. and I have shewn there is a necessity of understanding it to in the 13th of the Romans 2. But the Doctor observes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who exercise Authority and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Rulers veâ— 3â— the Ministers of God which bear the Suâ—rd ver 4. in St. Peter the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King and Governours and thence he infers that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does evidently relate to the exercise of Civil Authority not to a legal Right I think it relates to the rightful exercise of Authority God gives Authority and
Power that it may be exercised but if wicked Men obstruct the exercise of it the Gift is not forfeited though the End is accidentally defeated In a Rebellion which is the Parent of Anarchy the Sovereign cannot exercise his Authority But does he then cease to be th 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is God's Ordinance Or arâ—â— the Rebels then Licensed to resist him The same is the case of Usurpation the Usurper obstructs the exercise of God's Authority and his own Wickedness can give him no Right to continue it The exercise of God's Authority is often hindred by the Wickedness of Men as for instance his Authority in a Father when his Children are Rebellious in a Husband when his Wife in a Master when his Servants are Disobedient and in a Bishop or Pastor in the Cases of Schism Usurpation and Persecution and yet still the one remainâ— a Father the other a Husband the other a Master and the other a Bishop though those are names which relate to the exercise of Authority as well as Rulers Kings and Governours 3. He insists much upon the silence of Scripture as to the distinction between rightful Kings and Usurpers he affirms there is no such distinction to be found any where in Scripture and thence he argues That if St. Paul had intended any such distinction he ought to have said it in express Words or else no body could have reasonably understood him to intend this precept of Subjection only to legal Powers To this Objection the Doctor himself hath given a sufficient Answer What he has observed of our Savlour in his Case of Resistance is as true of his Apostle We have no Reason to suspect that Christ would alter the Rights of Sovereignty This was no part of his Commission to change the external Forms and Polities of Civil Governments He who would not undertake to divide an Inheritance between two contending Brethren Luke 12. 13 14. Can we think he would attempt any thing of that vast Consequence as the alterations of Civil Power which would have unsettled the Foundamental Constitutions of all the Governments of the World Again What Rights he found Sovereign Princes possessed of he leaves them in the quiet Possession of for had he intended to make any change in this Matter he would not have given such a general Rule to render to Caesar the Things which are Caesar ' s without specifying what those Things are And therefore he leaves them to the known Laws of the Empire to determine what is Caesar ' s Right whatever is essential to the notion of Sovereign Power whatever the Laws and Customs of Nations determine to be Caesar ' s Right that they must render to him for he would make no alteration in this Matter Now say I if our Saviour or his Apostles had enjoyn'd Subjects to adhere to Usurpers against their legal Sovereigns They had altered the Rights of Soveverignty and unsettled the Fundamental Constitutions of all Governments But on the contrary they leave all Princes in the Possession of their Rights they have given 〈…〉 this general Rule that we should render them their dues and what those are they have left to the Laws of Nations to determine and whatever the Laws and Customs of Nations determine to be a Prince's Right that the Subjects must render to him for the Gospel has made no alteration in this Matter And if this be good Reasoning then the point is whether Allegiance were due to Usurpers before the Gospel for if it were not the Gospel has made no alteration in this Matter nor made that to be a due which before was none But the Examples of Scripture the Law and Consent of Nations which have always allowed the Resistence of Usurpers do put that out of Question and therefore supposing the Gospel has given us no distinction between rightful Princes and Usurpers that silence can be no Argument against it for the Gospel has left the Rights of Princes as it found them it requires Subjects to render them those Rights and if by the Laws of Nations Allegiance is the right of lawful Princes it is their Right also by the Gospel Where may we find in Scripture any Distinction between a true and a false Father a lawfull Husband or Master and such as usurp those Characters Yet Subjection is required to Fathers Husbands and Masters as well as to Sovereign Princes but there was no need that the Scriptures should declare that it was due only to real Fathers and to lawful Husbands and Masters or that it should give Rules to distinguish them from the Usurpers of those Authorities common sense is sufficient to inform us that such a Distinction is necessary to be made and in ordinary cases it is easie to distinguish them The Scripture requires Obedience to Parents but tells us not who they are nor distinguishes real Parents from pretended and yet no one thinks that final Obedience is due to the Usurpers of that Authority Suppose it to be in the Case of Subjection to Civil Powers the Scripture requires it but distinguishes not between lawfull Powers and Usurpers Must we therefore conclude that it requires Subjection to Usurpers And why may we not conclude alike for the Usurpers of paternal Authority Is it because Sense and Reason do agree that Usurpers must be distinguished in the one Case but not in the other But Reason tells me plainly that Obedience is not due to the Usurpers of Civil Power for he who has no Right to Power has no Right to Obedience The Foundations of Paternal and Civil Authority may be different but in both the Duty of Obedience must be founded on a Right to Obedience nothing can be due to him who has no Right as an Usurper of paternal Power has no Right so neither has the Usurper of Civil Power he has neither a legal nor natural Right and as for the Right of Providence both the Usurpers may lay an equal Claim to it for they are both advanced by the same way of Providence There is no more Reason therefore to pay Obedience to a Civil Usurper than to the Usurpers of the Power of Fathers Husbands or Masters and where there is a plain necessity of making a distinction the silence of Scripture is no Argument against it There is no express Distinction in Scripture between the legal and illegal Possessor of an Estate there are onely general prohibitions of Injury and Injustice and general Precepts of rendring every Man his Due but what Estates or Properties are due to every Man is left to the Civil Laws of Nations to determine and yet the Silence of Scripture in these points is no Argument against the Distinction of Right in private Possessions and how can it hold good against the same Distinction in respect of Sovereignty There is the like Reason and Necessity for admitting it in the one case as there is in the other if there be any difference it is on
that the former Right is relinquished But it is also affirmed by Lawyers That quiet and immemorial Possession is a Right by the positive Law of Nations and if that be true then a wrongful Possession may become rightful by Continuance But though the former Right be extinguished Though no body else has any Right to the Crown How does this make him a rightful King who has no Right I answer in his own Words Possession is Title enough when there is no better Title to oppose it it is a Right by the Law of Nations and it may be founded also on the Consent of the People for they are free to Consent when the former Right is relinquished and they actually consent by submitting to his Government This Right of Prescription the Doctor will not understand He demands will an uninterrupted Possession of an hundred Years make the Vsurper a Rightful King without the Death or Cession of the whole Royal Family I answer a Cession is presum'd by the Consent of Nations and by Equity it self because it is reasonable to believe that he has relinquish'd his Right who suffers another to enjoy it without interruption and because it is the Interest of Societies that the Controversies about Dominion should at length be ended How then says the Doctor does the Royal Family come to lose their Right by an usurp'd Possession And if an Vsurpation will destroy their Right why not a short one as well as a long one Their Right is lost by Cession not by Usurpation and the Cession is not presum'd by the Law of Nations when the Usurpation is of short continuance short possession of an Estate is no right in any civiliz'd Society but a long Possession is a right almost all the World over So it is in Kingdoms and this consent of Nations will justify this Distinction though the Doctor will not understand it He demands farther How the People shall be justified in consenting that the Vsurper should reign while their rightful King is living If they cannot hinder him from reigning they need not justifying if they can and will not and therefore cannot be justified who can help it And what is that to the matter of Prescription But how long must the Vsurper reign before the People consent to it Till they can reasonably be persuaded that the former Right is extinguish'd Lastly he asks again Whether an hundered Years Possession be a good right against a better claim or how this better claim comes to expire after an hundred Years Vsurpation And I answer again that Prescription supposes the former Right to be extinguish'd which is so far from being a better that it ceases to be any Right the extinction of it may be grounded upon Equity or the positive Law of Nations as to the time of its expiring an hundred Years is not always necessary if the Cession can be prov'd that will suffice without respect to time but without other Proof by the consent of Nations undisturb'd Possession for a hundred Years does entinguish the former Title We come next to Hereditary Right and thus he argues against it it is either a continued Vsurpation which can give no Right or a Right by Law How Usurpation may produce a Right is consider'd already and what says he against a Right by Law why that is by the consent of the People to entail the Crown on such a Family which he has observ'd before cannot be done for what Right had my Ancestors three or four hundred Years agoe to choose a King for me Here a Question is made whether an Act or Law made by our Ancestors may oblige their Posterity He gives no Reasons to prove the Negative but supposes it Self-evident But the Reason and Practice of Mankind suppose the quite contrary if Children cannot be bound by the Acts of their Parents the Authority of Parents does signifie nothing but we need not this Authority to enforce the Obligation of Laws every Human Law does oblige the whole Community or Political Society to which it is a Law and therefore the Society being still the same it was four hundred Years agoe the Obligation reaches to every Member of it Thus Mr. Hooker to be commanded we do consent when that Society whereof we are a part hath at any time before consented without revoking the same after by the like universal Agreement Wherefore as any Man's Deed past is good as long as he himself continueth so the Act of a publick Society done five hundred Years sithence standeth as theirs who presently are of the same Societies because Corporations are immortal We were then alive in our Predecessors and they in their Successors do live still Even the publick Good and Interest of Societies is a sufficient Foundation for the extending the Obligation of Laws to Posterity If the Acts of Predecessors cannot bind their Successors standing Leagues between Nations are impracticable a King in being cannot be oblig'd by the Acts and Grants of former Kings the publick Faith of a Society is a publick Cheat for the Society can never be bound by it for a Week together and lastly where the explicite Consent of the People is requir'd to a Law it is plain that all Laws must expire as soon as born for the People are in a continual Flux and they are not the same to Day as Yesterday so that absolute Necessity seems to have introduc'd an universal Agreement in all Societies 〈◊〉 that the Obligation of Laws should be extended to Posterity This is the undeniable practice of all Nations every Act of Parliament is intended to oblige the future as well as present Generation till it is repeal'd In the Recognition of James the First the Lords and Commons do submit and oblige themselves their Heirs and Posterity for ever until the last drop of their Bâ—oods be spent to his Majesty King James and his Royal Progeny and Posterity for ever Here it is plain this Parliament thought they had a right to make Acts and Vows for their Posterity and we have not a Parliament only but also the Reason and Practice of all Nations against a single Doctor and I think he is the first Doctor that ever undertook to prove that Hereditary Right is no Right and that there is no Right to Sovereignty but Possession But I think also that the Doctor does contradict the Doctor for he allows that in an Hereditary Kingdom the lawful Heir has a legal Right to the Crown before he is in Possession and even after he is dispossess'd and when the Crown is vacant he acknowledges the Subjects are bound to maintain the Succession and to set up the lawful Heir And if this be true then it is evident that an Hereditary Right without Possession may lay an Obligation upon the People and consequently the People may be oblig'd by this Right though they did not personally consent to it He urges farther that this Hereditary Right must be ultimately resolved